The Caucus |
The Case for Obama Campaigning as a Foreign Policy President

Site Search Navigation

Search NYTimes.com

Loading...

See next articles

See previous articles

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

The Case for Obama Campaigning as a Foreign Policy President

By Michael D. Shear March 30, 2011 7:33 amMarch 30, 2011 7:33 am

Stephen Crowley/The New York TimesPresident Obama and President Sebastian Pinera of Chile at a news conference at the La Moneda Palace in Santiago.

The clear expectation in Washington is that President Obama will campaign for re-election by focusing, laser-like, on the economy, jobs, government spending and the nation’s debt.

But what if he didn’t?

In the past several weeks, events outside the United States have commanded as much of Mr. Obama’s attention as the nation’s domestic concerns. The upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa have provided a fresh reminder that the Oval Office is occupied by the nation’s commander in chief.

Tomorrow

The case for campaigning on the economy

That alone might not be enough to displace the economy as the No. 1 issue for Mr. Obama. But as the president’s top advisers survey the field of potential Republican rivals in 2012, one other fact is glaring: Almost none of them have any serious foreign policy credentials.

There are governors and former governors. There are current and past lawmakers, none of whom made foreign policy the center of their career. One possible hopeful has served two years as ambassador to China. But of the likely top-tier Republican candidates, none can boast any significant experience beyond the borders of the United States.

That provides the president with an ironic opening: Three years after waging a campaign in which he was the one lacking foreign policy credentials, Mr. Obama could use the same argument to earn a second term.

“The Republicans usually own the issue, and they are probably going to nominate someone who doesn’t have much experience,” said Richard Grenell, a former spokesman for United States ambassadors to the United Nations under President George W. Bush.

In truth, a presidential re-election campaign is never about one thing. World events could recede again as the 2012 election approaches. And White House officials are quick to point out that the administration — any administration — is able to deal with domestic and foreign issues simultaneously.

But if there was ever a year that a Democratic president might choose to emphasize foreign policy over domestic issues, 2012 might be it.

Here’s why:

* The lack of foreign policy credentials on the Republican side is a historical aberration for a party that has traditionally gravitated toward candidates whose primary credentials relate to America’s role abroad. (The two with some experience this year: Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah and the current China ambassador; and John Bolton, the former United Nations ambassador. Neither has said for sure he is running.)

* While the economy is improving slowly, many economists predict that unemployment is likely to still be above 8 percent by the time Election Day rolls around. Asking to be returned to the White House because things could have been worse is a tough message to sell, as the 2010 midterm elections showed.

* Arguments over the debt and the deficit look deadlocked and politically dangerous, at least in the near term. Already, Democrats are split as to whether voters will reward or punish politicians for confronting Social Security and Medicare directly. Meanwhile, most Republicans have refused to even entertain the idea of raising revenue, otherwise known as taxes. Mr. Obama is likely to be caught in the middle of that issue.

* Shifting the conversation toward foreign policy heightens the contrast between a candidate with presidential stature and his out-of-office rivals. The images of Mr. Obama in the Situation Room or standing shoulder-to-shoulder with world leaders make the Republicans who are campaigning in Iowa look small.

* Mr. Obama generally earns higher marks for his adventures overseas than he does for his domestic accomplishments. He has made good on his promise to begin a significant troop withdrawal in Iraq. He has negotiated a nuclear arms treaty with Russia. However, the ongoing war in Afghanistan, where the president has increased American involvement, has become increasingly unpopular.

* A decade after the September 11 attacks, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on his watch — a statistic that was often cited by President Bush as evidence that his administration was winning the war on terror.

There are certainly downsides if Mr. Obama chooses to focus his re-election campaign on foreign policy. It would open him to criticism for his failure to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, his still evolving Afghanistan strategy, and the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

And his Republican rivals will not hold back their criticism just because of their lack of experience. After the president’s Libya speech on Monday, Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, said, “For the leader of the free world, the United States of America, it is not appropriate to be sitting on the sidelines and just watching history unfold without exerting some leadership.”

But mostly, a foreign policy campaign would risk moving his re-election effort away from where the energy and passion is in American politics right now: jobs, government spending and the economy.

And yet, as the events overseas dominate the headlines day after day, the idea becomes less far-fetched. In 2007, the presidential contest began — in both parties — with sharp debates about the war in Iraq. Only at the end, when the economy was collapsing and conditions in Iraq were improving, did those issues recede.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…